I think the licence is fair, since BBC1 and 2 are IMO the best tv channels, period. The BBC website is very good too. The TV Licencing authority can be a right pain though, as you are finding out, so I wish you good luck next month
so what happens if you dont watch BBC? they still profit off you not watching it? if they really wanna fine you they need a photograph of you with the TV on and the BBC channel on IMO but hell im in Oz. no TV license and the ability to hack my cable internet and get free cable TV. but my cable company went digital so i cant pickup any of there channels anymore
If you don't watch the BBC, legally you don't have to pay for a license, but realistically the TVLA will pester you until you cough up. And you can hack cable?
If I watch TV though the internet(ie. streaming in media player or similar) do I need a license? David
I was about to ask that. I've watched some of the Six Nations matches on the BBC News website, and with the advent of IPTV(TV over your internet connection), I was wondering how licence fee will continue to apply.
Yes, you do. The license is a license to operate equipment capable of receiving broadcast television signals, and you have to pay even if you only watch ITV, Channel 4 and Five, or Satellite, or Cable premium channels. That might be somewhat unfair, but legally you DO have to pay for a license in those circumstances. IMHO the license is a very fair price for an excellent service. Even shows specifically designed for ad breaks (read anything from the US!) are still much more enjoyable without them, (although you can often see quite clearly where the producers edited in a fade to commercial break) and as for films, it's a crime to mutilate a good film by putting ad breaks through it, so Auntie comes up trumps again. On top of this, the unique way the BBC is funded lets them take a lot more risks with programming, rather than buy up whatever syndicated trash they know will get the largest audience. For anyone who prefers intelligent drama and original, ground-breaking comedy to the same old rehashed mindless trash it's a Godsend. And then there's news - unbiased by the looming power of big advertisers, yet also free from Government control, the BBC is without question the most reliable news service on the planet. For a tenner a month, the amount of quality, ad free programming the Beeb provides is absolutely staggering. I love the BBC - one of the dwindlingly few reasons to be proud to be British!
The BBC is an amazing company. Sure not all fo the programs are great, but as you say, they do take stuff to new levels! They can try out new stuff because they know of guaranteed income, and thats whats making some of the best comedy, drama, and news on earth. As for being free from the government, thats also great - there not afraid to show their views, and publicly challenge the government to whatever end. the have fundraisers, give lots of money to charity - their website is amazing for all sorts (tv listings, learning, discussion etc) - and on top of it all they own some of the best tv ever created (red dwarf, blackadder, only fools and horses etc). £120 is a fair price for the continuation of such an awesome company
Yup. Well, depends what TV you're watching: (from http://www.tvlicensing.biz/info_on_tvlicensing/index.htm)
Anyway It's not 1 license per property by the way. If you live in a shared house where you are renting a room, you are required to have a tv license for every tv in every rented room. This excludes a license you might have in a shared lounge. Also, if the BBC is that good, people would choose to pay for the channels (just like every other country in the world pays for what they view, excluding the many free rubbish channels of course).
no wonder we rebeled...is there really nothing better to do over there than hassel people about a license to watch tv? "No license for yee?! OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!"
typical knee-jerk American reaction to the concept of paying a license fee. It's cheap (£10 a month = $18) so not going to break the bank, and it gives us top quality programming without adverts - original comedy and drama, unsurpassed news and current affairs broadcasts etc. The irony is that so many people whinge about the license fee yet are quite happy to pay £40 a month to Sky / NTL for hundreds of channels of dross and a couple of watchable ones, which are heavily advertising supported anyway. Yes, we could abolish the license fee, but then we'd be subjected to the kind of overly commercialised mindless nonsense that passes for entertainment in the US, targetted at the lowest common denominator to get viewing figures to generate advertising revenue. We'd lose the BBC's news service, which is universally accepted as a source of reliable global news coverage without bias deriving from advertisers, government or sponsors. And we'd lose the best news website around, to be left with banner/popup ridden inferior journalism. And then there's radio - how great it is to have radio broadcasting where the music isn't interrupted every five minutes with some garish advert beign forced into your ears. On a side note, ever noticed how much louder the ads are than the programming on radio? Actually some music singles use the same technique - they compress the dynamic range and crank the gain up as high as they can (to the point of distortion) to give them the best chance of being heard by people who have the radio at background level. Unfortunately if you're actually trying to listen to the radio, and like your music loud, you constantly have to be on ad-alert to turn the volume down before your eardrums get burst by some grating jingle.
i have a friend this happened to, he uses an old tv to watch videos but doesnt have it tuned into any tv signals, some people came around, when he opened the door, they forced their way in and refused to leave until the guy signed it. This guy had recently been studying contract law and knew that if he was being forced to sign something that the thing he signed was invalid, as he ha signed it under duress. After the men had left, he rang up the TVLA, asked to speak to their boss and told him what happened. Never heard from the TVLA again
man who pissed in your cherrios this morning... Its not the fact that its only $18/month but rather that you have to pay it, or so it seems that they take you to court and such...
Just a bit of harmless banter mate, but it's true that most non-UK people are repulsed by the idea of paying for TV, which they see as a free resource. I put it to you that you get what you pay for No you don't, you could go without TV. In the final analysis, what I'm saying is that the price we pay for TV here in the UK is an absolute bargain when you consider what we get for that money.
you HAVE to pay for hospitals whether you use them or not. You HAVE to pay for schools and education whether you use it or not. Road tax - you dont have to pay if you dont use a car. TV Tax - You dont have to pay if you dont use a TV. See what im getting at ? maybe we should have sponsored roads - ads printed all the way along them, that would be fun edit: ooh, another analogy while you may not use the M21, part of your road tax goes to its upkeep. why dont we make road tax for only roads you go along ? because every so often, somebody will think "it doesnt matter if i go along this road, nobody will be checking, and its only once". if everybody thinks this, it turns into the state of affairs where everybody is using whatever roads and paying only a fraction of what they currently pay! edit2: oh, but have no mistake that i disagree with tactics taken to enforce the tv licence. there right *******s!
Ok wow this is the first I have heard of such a thing. I just want to say that being forced to pay is outrageous. I understand that if you love the channel and the network then you have the option to pay for it. We have something like that here, HBO for example has no commercials and quality programing. In exchange for that you have to pay extra for that channel. But by no means are people forced to pay simply becuase they have the capability of watching that channel. You say it is a small payment, a monthly payment. I say 1 cent is too much for a forced payment. If you dont use it you dont pay for it, is that not a simple concept. All I can say is that I sure am happy that these gestapo tactics do not enterfear with my right to watch what i want when i want for how much I choose to pay. I will gladly watch 30 secs of comercials if that means I am not forced to pay a monthly fee just for owning a TV. God this just lowered my thoughts on the UK by quite alot. JEEVES
Your argument doesn't make any sense - you say you shouldn't have to pay for something you don't use. That is EXACTLY how it works - if you don't watch TV you don't have to pay a TV license. I never had a TV at uni, ergo I never had to fork out for a license. Now I have my own flat, I choose to own and operate a TV, so I pay the license. Where is the coercion? It's exactly like your example, HBO. If you want to watch HBO you pay for it. Here, if you want to watch any TV you pay for it, but it's still a choice.
and for me next year, ill be living with 5 people, which means that the cost of it per person is significantly reduced (~25 each ). there are reductions for people using black and white, for students, for people on pensions etc! edit: may not be student reductions, sorry
This isnt canada, we do pay for hospitals as we need them (and quite alot at that). And Roads yes we do pay for the roads we drive on. The tax is actualy state tax so majority of the roads you pay for are the ones you drive on. and there are actualy ads printed all the way along them, they are called billboards. What is this m21 you are speaking of? I only know of the constilation or the rifle. I tried to google it but have only found these similar things. Or are you talking about the heart monitor. Is this a road? a highway? JEEVES
